I commented on the Virginia “tributary strategies” (www.naturalresources.virginia.gov) which were dubbed, correctly, by CBF as “Tributary Tragedies,” on 05/03/04 (Tribstrat1.pdf) and 05/04/04 (TribStratNOIRA.pdf), complaining that the proposed allocation of funds did not address agricultural pollution proportionate to its importance. No response was received.

I became aware that the Sec. of Health and Human Resources, Jane H. Woods, the responsible official for the agency (VDH) that oversees the land-application of most sewage sludge, claimed that sludge was being “...applied at a rate that does not exceed nutrient requirements for the crops to be grown that year.” In a letter of 09/20/04 I pointed out that she was incorrect, and that phosphorus was being massively over-applied in violation of 12VAC5-585-550.A (WD1.pdf). Her reply of 10/19/04 (Woods1R.pdf) assured me that “...current requirements...are being enforced.” I was not assured, and challenged her assertion on 11/24/04 (WD2.pdf) and asked the Attorney General to respond to my belief that the law is being broken. This generated a flurry of verbiage, including a response from an “Assistant Attorney General Agency Counsel” on 12/13/04 (WD2AGR.pdf) who informed me in effect that the Office of the Attorney General defends the State against the people. Sec. Woods responded again on 12/22/04 (Woods2R.pdf) with gibberish from a scientist at Virginia Tech well known as a promoter of the land-application of sewage sludge, and touting the upcoming revision of nutrient management regulations (see below). Then-Sec. of Natural Resources W. Tayloe Murphy responded on 12/23/04 (WDMurphR.pdf) with platitudes. As a result of copying my letter of 11/24/04 to then-Governor Mark Warner, Sec. Woods replied (WD2R2.pdf) regarding the importance of “...use of the P index for placing restrictions on applied P.” My public comments on the ”P index” follow. Rebecca Hanmer of EPA responded on 01/25/05 (WD2REPA.pdf) with Directive No. 04-3 of the Chesapeake Executive Council (CECD4.pdf).

Directive 04-3 deserves comment. The Chesapeake Executive Council directive proposes six “...solutions for reducing nutrient pollution from animal manure and poultry litter...” (sewage sludge is ignored).

1) Reduce the nutrient content by adjusting animal diets. This commonly cited strategy is never convincingly quantified and will likely be insignificant even if it is ever actually implemented. The dietary uptake by animals is inefficient, and only small gains are possible using this strategy, which will in part be offset by growth of the animal husbandry industry. Sewage sludge accounts for about 25% of the nitrogen pollution (see Conclusions) and is not addressed. Problems must be addressed at their roots. The massive pollution caused by the land-application of animal waste must be solved by stopping the practice, not by chipping away at its inefficiency. Similarly, the problem of excess algal production in Chesapeake Bay must be solved at its roots by stopping over-fertilization practices. An analogy is a leaking boat. The boat's problem is not solved by installing a bigger bilge pump, just as Chesapeake Bay's water quality problem is not solved by increasing the abundance of filter-feeders like oysters and menhaden, desirable as that may be. The leaky boat can only be saved by fixing the leak, just as Chesapeake Bay's water quality problem can only be solved at its roots by reducing nitrate and phosphate pollution.
2) Use manure and poultry litter as fertilizer. That is the problem, not the solution, even when it is applied “...on state and federal lands...”
3) Demonstrate the use of manure as an energy source. Manure is already incinerated. Why is demonstration necessary? Stop talking about it and mandate it.
4) Coordinate transport and relocation programs. Moving pollution from one place to another within the watershed does not reduce pollution.
5) Apply the latest scientific understanding. “Generally accepted” science as proposed by agronomists, who focus on maximizing productivity, will not reduce pollution.
6) Develop specific actions to achieve these objectives. Directive 98-4 (directive #4 in 1998 - www.chesapeakebay.net) espoused similar objectives, and not a single atom of nitrogen or phosphorus pollution has been prevented from polluting Chesapeake Bay by the eight year-old verbiage.

It is clear that the Economy Protection Agency (EPA) has no intention of seriously addressing the most egregious source of agricultural pollution of Chesapeake Bay, namely the land-application of animal waste (poultry litter, manure and municipal sewage sludge.) EPA’s position on sewage sludge, protective of the Economy (profits of the land-application and waste disposal industries and cost-savings for a few farmers) and not the Environment is well documented in the International Journal of Occupational and Environmental Health, 2005, v. 11, p. 415-427 (www.sludgefacts.org.)

As a result of my opposition to the land-application of municipal sewage sludge because of uncertainties about the industrial chemicals, pharmaceuticals, personal care products (PPCPs) and pathogens it contains, I became interested in the nitrate and phosphate pollution caused by the land-application of all forms of animal waste. I served on a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) to the VA Department of Conservation and Recreation (DCR) on nutrient management regulations purported to reduce phosphorus pollution. On recognizing the magnitude of pollution caused by the land-application of animal waste, a series of letters to committees, CBF and EPA were written.

I attended four TAC meetings, all dominated by land-application interests. My sense was that DCR staff initially wanted to do something meaningful to restrict phosphorus pollution, but by the last meeting they had been reined in by superiors, although this is just an impression. A letter during the meetings (08/02/04) (TAC1Perk.pdf) and one after the final meeting (09/15/04) (TAC2Perk.pdf) were critical of the public review process and of the tentative position that DCR espoused at the final meeting. Then-Sec. of Natural Resources, W. Tayloe Murphy responded on 10/07/04 with platitudes (TACMurphR.pdf).

My public comments, submitted on 06/13/05, (TAC3pubcom.pdf) were excerpted rather than publishing them in their entirety, and addressed by DCR in the 72 page Form TH-03 “Final Agency Background Document” regarding 4VAC5-15, on 11/02/05 (www.dcr.virginia.gov/docs/). Here is the “meat” of the responses to the seven questions I posed:

1) Why is the straightforward, common sense Soil Test P method not being mandated? “In developing the regulations, the agency attempted to balance economic costs to the industry while improving water quality benefits.” (Balance.pdf) The “Soil Test P” method involves analyzing the soil for phosphorus and then applying only as much phosphorus as is needed to grow the crop. If it were mandated, as 12VAC5-585-550.A demands, the land-application of animal waste would be essentially curtailed.
2) Why is land-application to be permitted at up to 1.5 times crop removal rates? See #1. The regulations are formulated so as to minimize restrictions on land-application.
3) Why is the cumbersome and complex Phosphorus Index, poorly grounded in modern peer-reviewed science, and capable of being manipulated to yield a minimum result, being advocated? “...dairy, poultry, swine, and biosolids sectors have all voiced a strong desire to have an option to use the phosphorus index.” No wonder.
4) Why is a distinction made between inorganic and organic forms of P and why is the language with regard to organic P permissive? See #1 and 3.
5) Why is 12VAC5-585-550.A being violated and P being ignored? “DCR will appraise VDH of the concern.” Pass the buck.
6) Why are nutrient management plans not mandated for the land-application of manure and poultry litter, which constitute most of the N pollution? DCR “...does not have the authority to require nutrient management plans on all lands that receive manure or poultry litter.” But DCR is responsible for non-point source pollution in Virginia. Pass the buck.
7) Why are the N recommendations for soybeans not zero, as they are for red clover? “...intentionally excluded so as not (to) be in conflict with Biosolids Use Regulations.” A very telling statement admitting that the State favors land application over water quality concerns! “there is scientific evidence [not cited] that the plants will preferentially uptake available nitrogen in the soil before the fixation of atmospheric nitrogen occurs.” Farmers do not purchase nitrogen fertilizer to grow legumes. Permitting land-application to soybeans is merely an excuse to continue disposal by land-application and guarantees massive nitrate and phosphate pollution.

Sec. Tayloe Murphy, nearing the end of his appointment, responded (TACMurph3R.pdf) and claimed that the soil test phosphorus method could not “... accommodate the volumes of animal and human waste generated in the watershed ....” admitting that the State favors land application over improving water quality. He ignores the fact that a great deal of the sewage sludge and poultry litter is from out-of-state or that land-filling is an option. The Phosphorus index is “used by most states” for the same reason Virginia adopted it, namely that it does not significantly restrict land application.

Senators Chichester and Hawkins, and Delegates Callahan, Cox, Lingamfelter and Parrish (and subsequently, Del. Wittman) were charged with identifying funding to improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay. My letter of 11/25/05 (Baycomm.pdf) received no response.

In response to growing citizen complaints about the land-application of sewage sludge, a joint legislative committee (JLARC) submitted a report critical of VDH’s management of the “biosolids” program. That report completely ignored the massive pollution of Chesapeake Bay caused by the land-application process, as I pointed out on 03/31/06 (JLARC.pdf). A response from the Secretary of Natural Resources, L. Perston Bryant, Jr (JLARCR.pdf) contains several inaccuracies, as I pointed out in my reply of 06/12/06 (JLBryant.pdf). On 06/28/06 I was informed by Sec. Bryant that “We are taking the information you have provided under advisement.”

On Feb. 13, 2007, I met with Sec. Bryant along with several other citizens, to inform him of the reasons for our opposition to the land application of municipal sewage sludge. At that time I presented him with a letter (Bryant0207.pdf), also addressed to the Directors of DEQ and DCR, documenting the folly of this highly polluting practice, that the cost savings by a few farmers are miniscule, and that landfilling would increase wastewater bills for citizens of municipalities less than the cost of two bags of junk food per year.

Sec. Bryant responded on 02/28/07 (Bryant0228.pdf) that he, Director Paylor of DEQ and Director Maroon of DCR agreed with my statement “Agricultural fertilization practices are the largest source of nitrogen and phosphorus pollution of Chesapeake Bay.” In his letter he made me aware of a Water Quality Clean-up Plan and requested my input. I responded to him regarding the “Plan” on 03/15/07 (Bryant0315.pdf).

On 09/18/07, I spoke before Secs. Bryant and Tavenner who convened an “Expert Panel” mandated by the legislature to study sewage sludge (www.deq.virginia.gov/info/biosolidspanel.html). I presented all participants with an oral summary of the nutrient pollution caused by land application along with copies of the two Bay Journal articles published in December 2006 and May 2007 (www.BayJournal.org). My presentation apparently had no effect because the 11/08/07 Rappahannock Record (a local newspaper) quoted Sec. Bryant as saying, wrongly, that “Developing a sustainable market for poultry litter helps stimulate the farm economy and also has water quality benefits as well.” Clearly the Kaine Administration is more concerned with the profits of a small group of “stakeholders” than they are with improving water quality in Chesapeake Bay.

On 01/08/08 I responded to a Notice of Intended Regulatory Action regarding poultry litter, pointing out that regulations (currently, 80% of poultry litter is land-applied with no regulations whatsoever) should certainly be no less restrictive than they are for sewage sludge. In fact, regulations should be stiffer, because poultry litter is so phosphorus-rich, and should, at a very minimum, mandate the “Soil Test P” method (NOIRA0108.pdf). I also complained that the cost accounting being done by the State did not take into account the economic value of a healthy Chesapeake Bay, stating “The annual value of the Bay to the US economy has been estimated to be as high as $1 Trillion, and it is obvious that, irrespective of whose numbers are accepted, the poultry industry is of trivial economic value to Virginia compared to the value of a healthy Bay.” It has been estimated that each pound of nitrogen pollution costs society between about $0.90 and $2.20 (Journal of Agricultural and Resource Economics, 2002, v. 27, p. 420-432). Using the more conservative figure, if a farmer saves $56 per acre by using sludge instead of conventional fertilizer, each acre costs society at least $350 because of increased pollution. The real economics are ignored by Virginia and the Economy Protection Agency (EPA) in favor of immediate profits for special interests. Never mind the next generation.

I learned of an egregious case where lack of appropriate laws and lack of enforcement regarding the land-application of poultry litter has led to pollution of a privately-owned pond and an arm of the Great Wicomico River in Northumberland County by both nitrate and arsenic. In a letter to Gov. Kaine (turkeylitter.pdf) and to EPA, I concluded: “The bottom line is that nearly 40 truck-loads of turkey litter were successfully disposed, remained uncovered for two growing seasons, and continue to pollute a pond and an arm of the Great Wicomico River with nitrate and arsenic.“ The State knows about it, but the pile remained until late January 2009, as a monument to Virginia’s priorities, when it was moved. The Virginia Department of Environmental Quality analyzed two water samples, on 12/01/08, one trapped behind the berm and the other running downhill toward the pond. Here are the data. Quotes are from the DEQ report to EPA.

Yet another “Technical Advisory Committee” was convened to “study” the land application of sewage sludge in Virginia after oversight was transferred from VDH to DEQ. As usual, and as I pointed out in an email of 09/19/08, the State stacked the deck. There were 7 members on the committee of 16 who are "pro" land application (Agriculture, Generator, Land Applier and Dr. Evanylo), 4 (citizens and medical) who are likely more critical of the land application of sewage sludge, and 5 "neutral?" government representatives. No academic environmental/estuarine scientists or economists were included. Three of the 4 citizens and medical professionals resigned on 05/18/09 “Rather than carry on as impotent members of a panel with predetermined outcomes ...”, citing that the “... TAC is structured in such a way that concerns of Virginia’s citizens and medical doctors have not and will not be addressed ...” So much for the myth of unbiased “stakeholder” participation!

A perusal of the draft meeting notes of 06/04/09 revealed the following proposed language:

9VAC25-32-600. Biosolids characteristics; nutrients; trace elements; organic chemicals.

A. The primary agronomic value of biosolids, the nutrient content, shall be established prior to agricultural use. The applied nitrogen and phosphorous content of biosolids shall be limited to amounts established to support crop growth. Nitrate nitrogen developed as a result of biosolids application shall be controlled in order not to accumulate in groundwater as a pollutant.

I pointed out in an email to William Norris of DEQ on 06/09/09 that the proposed wording of the Virginia Administrative Code was patent nonsense. The third sentence (underlined for emphasis) is scientifically impossible. It is well established that the nitrate concentration in groundwater beneath conventionally fertilized agricultural fields is always high (USGS Circular 1228, for example.) Using data from the 2004 and 2005 “Virginia On-Farm Corn Test Plots,” for each acre on which corn was grown, on average:

1) Approximately 162 pounds of conventional nitrogen (N) fertilizer was applied to yield an average of 174 bushels of corn grain.

2) The average “Nitrogen Use Efficiency” (NUE = pounds N harvested with the grain / pounds N applied) for 20 plots was 72% assuming 56 pounds/bushel at 15% moisture and 1.4% N in the dry grain (116/162, where 116 = 174 * 56 * 0.85 * 0.014). Therefore 28% of the applied nitrogen, or 46 pounds (162 - 116), was released to the environment from each acre as potential pollution. Some of the excess nitrogen certainly entered the groundwater by infiltration.

3) Accepting that 30% of the nitrogen in lime-stabilized sewage sludge is crop-available the first year (Table 9-1 in the 2005 Virginia Department of Conservation and Recreation’s Nutrient Management Standards and Criteria), 540 pounds of nitrogen is applied (162/0.3) to provide sufficient “Plant Available N,” and the NUE is 21% (116/540) that year. Three Corn Test Plots actually used “biosolids.” All were side dressed with additional nitrogen. If that fact doesn’t prove the farmers’ focus on their bottom line, and their (and the State’s) complete disregard for pollution, I don’t know what does. Using the most inefficient fertilization practice and then applying additional nitrogen is inexcusable. The three measured NUEs were 19%, 25% and 32%. On average, 79% of the applied nitrogen, 424 pounds (540 - 116), was released from each acre to the environment as potential pollution, including groundwater contamination.

Because nitrate concentrations increase in groundwater as the result of conventional chemical fertilization, nitrate concentrations obviously increase much more when sludge (and poultry litter) are used. The third sentence proposed in 9VAC25-32-600A is nonsense!

As I have pointed out numerous times previously, the second sentence “The applied nitrogen and phosphorous content of biosolids shall be limited to amounts established to support crop growth.” demands that the "Soil Test Phosphorus" method be used, and sludge application be limited by that criterion. Failure to enforce this common-sense principle is a blatant violation of law, and proves the State’s focus on agricultural productivity and lack of meaningful intent to improve water quality in Chesapeake Bay. The State’s pro-agriculture position is also proven by the reasons the TAC committee members gave for their resignations.

I submitted public comments regarding Virginia Pollution Abatement (VPA) Permit Regulation for Poultry Waste Management on 08/19/09, stating that the proposed regulations are not based on science, are incomplete, and do not achieve the goal of protecting water quality, as claimed (Comments.pdf). In a cover letter to Governor Kaine, I advised that if the regulations are promulgated as written, he can never honestly claim that his administration is concerned about water quality in Chesapeake Bay, but focuses instead on protecting the profits of the poultry industry.

I submitted public comments (Lancaster sludge.pdf) to Va DEQ regarding 2,000 acres being permitted for land application of sewage sludge in Lancaster County Virginia, summarizing the costs to society in nutrient and bacterial pollution, all to save a very few farmers $1,173 per farm.

/ Home / Correspondence / Nutrient Management